Nov
16

Sherman: Yankees planning to add Mitchell, Greene to 40-man roster

By

Via Joel Sherman: The Yankees are planning to add minor league right-handers Bryan Mitchell and Shane Greene to the 40-man roster. Both players are eligible for next month’s Rule 5 Draft, along with a whole bunch of other guys. The deadline to set the 40-man roster for Rule 5 Draft is this coming Wednesday.

Mitchell, 22, was the team’s 16th round pick out of a North Carolina high school in the 2009 draft. They bought him away from UNC with an $800k signing bonus. Mitchell pitched to a 5.12 ERA (3.47 FIP) in 126.2 innings for High-A Tampa this past season before a late promotion to Double-A Trenton. He’s all about stuff — Mitchell sits in the mid-90s with his fastball and only David Robertson boasts a better curveball in the organization. I ranked him as the team’s 16th best prospect before the season and at least a year and probably two away from the show.

Greene, 24, was drafted one round before Mitchell out of Daytona Beach Community College. He had a 3.38 ERA (3.06 FIP) in 154.1 innings split almost equally between High-A Tampa and Double-A Trenton this past year. Greene took a huge step forward with his control this summer, going from 4.37 BB/9 (10.8 BB%) from 2009-2012 to 1.75 BB/9 (4.5 BB%) in 2013. He’s a low-to-mid-90s fastball guy with a good slider who will probably wind up as a reliever long-term. There’s a chance we’ll see Greene in the big leagues in 2014. Both he and Mitchell are slated to open next year back with a Thunder.

Categories : Asides
  • RetroRob

    Mid-90s with a very good curve? Doesn’t give up many long balls either. You’d think the results would be better with that mix. Hopefully the FIP is more a sign of his talent level now.

    • Bo Knows

      He has walked too many guys, results won’t be there if you keep putting guys on base. Though in his defense, he improved this year dropping his walks to 3.6 per 9 which is down from his career average of 4.5. Hopefully he cuts it down again. He’s got a lot of innings coming up next year to work with (he pitched 145 innings this year, so he is in line for 175-180 innings next season) so hopefully he can

  • Mick

    5.12 era in A ball? Doesn’t sound like all that much “stuff”

    • lightSABR

      “Stuff” usually refers to the quality of the pitches: how fast is the fastball, how hard does the curveball curve, etc. It’s possible to have amazing stuff and lousy results if you don’t have command, strategy, etc.

      And if you’re going to pick between someone with good stuff and lousy command and someone with good command and lousy stuff, usually you go with the guy with the stuff. The idea is that you might be able to teach the mechanics to get the command, but you can’t teach a 95-mph fastball.

      • lightSABR

        (Of course, there are limits. Obviously you start 2011 Freddy Garcia over 2012 Dellin Betances.)

        • Mac

          I would say that rule applies more to picking up amateur guys or prospects than deciding who to start at the MLB level. The general idea being that as the control-only guy faces increasingly tougher competition he’s going to get hit harder, while the stuff-only guy may learn command as you said. Once you’re in MLB most guys will be pretty solid in both categories and for fringy one-or-the-other guys you’re probably going case by case.

          • Havok9120

            Luckily, we aren’t talking about the MLB level.

            • Mac

              “We” aren’t talking about anything. I don’t know why you are defending comments that you didn’t make and probably haven’t read given that you don’t know what they say.

              lightSABR was, in fact, talking about the MLB level: “Obviously you start 2011 Freddy Garcia over 2012 Dellin Betances.” This was the comment I responded to. Try reading the comment thread you are jumping into next time.

              • Robinson Tilapia

                That’s not quite what he was saying there.

                • Mac

                  With all due respect, why do you always feel the need to interpret other people’s comments? All the time someone asks a commenter what they meant, and you step in to explain. You are not an objective arbiter, as you are reading your own biases into the text on the screen just like anyone else. And you don’t really know what they meant to say, you are just sort of guessing based on the way you read it. I’m sure that you’re trying to be helpful, but when you assume you understand text on the screen better than everyone else it can get a bit annoying.

                  In this case he made a general comment about what stuff *usually means*. Then he used an example of one guy from MLB and one guy from AAA. Even as an illustrative example, I felt that needed to be qualified. If they were both amateurs, you might actually take the Betances over the Garcia based on projection against exponentially tougher competition. By the time they’re in MLB, I would say the trade-off doesn’t really matter anymore. That’s what I was saying, and I don’t see why the fuck Havok decided to be a dick about it rather than understanding the context of the conversation and what I was actually saying.

              • Havok9120

                So you picked the part of his post that was there merely as an example to detail the limits of his point rather than addressing the point of his post itself (“stuff” versus results in a player in A ball)?

                Perhaps you should be a bit more open minded about what the heck is going on rather than immediately attacking my reading comprehension.

                • Mac

                  No. I was directly addressing the point of the post by qualifying it. He didn’t qualify it and then brought it up in an MLB context, and I was just pointing out that this doesn’t work so well in that context.

                  I wasn’t trying to attack your reading comprehension at all, but I would say it is you who needs to be more open minded. I would also ask that you stop butting into conversations without actually reading the conversations. *“Stuff” usually refers to the quality of the pitches*… *USUALLY REFRS TO*… Not “Bryan Mitchell’s stuff in A ball”… *Of course, there are limits. Obviously you start 2011 Freddy Garcia over 2012 Dellin Betances.* Freddy Garcia was in his mid-30s or something and had been in MLB for over a decade. There is no A ball P mentioned here. He was generally explaining to someone who demonstrated a lack of understanding about what the term was what it means, and I was just trying to constructively add to the conversation by qualifying the explanation. Then you come out of left field being a dick. *Go fuck yourself and butt the fuck out of everyone else’s comments.* “We” were not talking about anything and lightSABR is perfectly capable of responding him- or herself.

                  • Mac

                    By the way… I specifically said twice that I didn’t think you had actually read the comments. Not that I thought you had read the comments and couldn’t comprehend them.

                  • Havok9120

                    I did read the conversation. Apparently I read it differently than you. That does not mean I didn’t read or understand the conversation, nor does it mean I was being a dick. It means I was referring to the original discussion about Bryan Mitchell. Was it a quip? Sure. Was it meant to be hostile to you? No. Did it require you to assume I was being an ass and jump on me about not reading the posts and oh, by the way, how dare you comment on a discussion in a public forum? I didn’t think so, especially since you misconstrued my comment at least as much as I misconstrued yours.

    • Robinson Tilapia

      It’s been pretty well documented how much of a project Mitchell has been. Plenty of guys have tantalizing stuff that they trouble harnessing. He’s far from the first.

  • PunkPitch

    Mitchell has everything that makes a scout drool, except tangible results. Alas, THAT is Oppenheimer’s mantra over the last few years.

    • Mac

      I would disagree with that. There are two high profile examples of that, but he’s had a lot of polished Ps too. Every single organization is going to have some P prospects with great raw stuff who don’t put it all together. The Yankees have produced their fair share of polished SPs under Oppenheimer between IPK, Nova, and Phelps.

      Also, Oppenheimer is in charge of bringing these guys in. If you think the problem is their development, your anger is misplaced.

      • Farewell Mo

        There’s plenty of blame to go around that includes Oppenheimer, Contreras, Cashman and Eppler for the shit show also known as the Yankees drafting and player (lack of) development.

        • Mac

          I really don’t agree with that assessment.

          Contreras was already demoted a year ago, for one thing, so he’s already been blamed. Eppler scouts pro players, so as far as his official role there’s no reason to think he has much of anything to do with acquiring amateurs or developing prospects.

          I would also argue that the Yankees results are probably pretty close to average over any meaningful sample. This is not really something that you can judge over a 2 or 3 year period. The variability is just sky high.

          • Farewell Mo

            Even Cashman has acknowledged that what they’ve gotten from the farms in recent years is less than satisfactory as has the rest of the front office with changes expected in the hierarchy in that department in the near future

            Trying to sugar coat it doesn’t hide the fact that they don’t have a decent position player and only Nova (loosely speaking) as a starting pitcher under the age of 30.

            • Mac

              You haven’t actually addressed my comment at all. You either haven’t understood what I said or have chosen to ignore it and just repeat yourself. There were two points that I made:

              1. I disagreed with your assessment in part because you were throwing blame around left and right to guys who weren’t even involved in player development.

              2. I also pointed out that you’re looking at a tiny sample. I never disagreed that results have been poor the last few years. I said that there’s no reason to judge an entire system on a tiny sample of results. The reason that you don’t rely on small samples is that the variability is too great to draw conclusions about the underlying population. Say that one solid MLB starter every two years is the mark of a solid farm system (the actual number isn’t that important, just a placeholder to demonstrate my point… change it if you like). If you go three years without developing one and then develop 2 in year four or develop one in year one and on in year three… you still had a solid farm system. Point is that you can’t re-evaluate your farm system every year on the most recent season or even three seasons. You have to look at the underlying process and more medium-term results. The Yankees had a great run from 2005-2010 and have a promising crop getting MLB ready right now with at least an equally promising crop below them in the low- to mid-minors. Brian Cashman is likely to agree with me here, otherwise he would have cleaned house (and of course he does, because this is what you learn freshman year of college in stats 101).

              “Trying to sugar coat it doesn’t hide the fact that they don’t have a decent position player and only Nova (loosely speaking) as a starting pitcher under the age of 30.”

              Using a “fact” that isn’t even a real fact and distorts reality doesn’t make for a strong argument.

              It’s not a real fact because there’s like a 90% chance that the Yankees will have two SPs in their rotation under 30 in their opening day rotation between Nova and either Phelps, Pineda, or Warren. I also don’t see what’s loose about Nova. He’s at 6.3 fWAR in 3 seasons since his first full MLB season, which puts him in the top 20 among guys his age over that period.

              It distorts reality because you are not counting all the guys they developed who aren’t with the team or just hit 30. IPK and Hughes have been solid, if inconsistent, young SPs that the Yankees drafted and developed. AJax and Gardner are two of the better young CFs in the league. Again, returns were actually very good from 2005-2010, and it’s only a few year dry spell that may have been exacerbated by injuries to Pineda (their Montero replacement), Banuelos, Romine, and Adams.

          • Robinson Tilapia

            God bless you, mac.

            • Farewell Mo

              Polyanna #1

              • Robinson Tilapia

                Nice.

            • Farewell Mo

              Via Bob Klapisch: Brian Cashman acknowledged the Yankees will look to address their unproductive farm system and player development issues in the coming weeks. “I understand why people are bringing that up, and it’s something we’re going to be looking at,” said the GM. “I have no problem dealing with reality … .”

              Pretending it isn’t true doesn’t change the fact that it is indeed quite true.

              • Mac

                It’s not a matter of pretending anything. Not a single person is disagreeing with you if your point is that their farm has been unproductive the last three years or so (if you’re trying to go back further than that you are just plain wrong since they were producing more than one solid MLB player per year from about 2005-10… which is a very solid clip at worst). People are disagreeing with you about why that has happened and what it means going forward.

                You haven’t displayed any understanding for the opposing viewpoint. I would really suggest trying to understand it before you insist that you disagree with it.

          • Havok9120

            Very much agreed with all of this in kind if not degree.

            • Farewell Mo

              Pollyanna #2

              • Mac

                Stop calling people names when you don’t even understand what they’re talking about.

                • Robinson Tilapia

                  The very point of his doing so is that. It’s quite obvious he can’t follow your argument and follows up everything you have to say with angry Yankee fan populist angst, and little else.

              • Havok9120

                Yes, yes, your schtick is known to us at this point.

                “Either you are with me in every facet of my distaste and agree with me completely or, clearly, you are a Pollyanna.”

                Something is rotten in Denmark in terms of player development. There aren’t a lot of people who dispute that. But we have no idea what it is or who is to blame. The optimal solution to that is not “punish all those involved,” but to let the people with a better vantage point decide who to punish and what to change.

                The fact that you included people in your criticisms who have either little to do with the farm or who have already been punished makes it rather difficult for me to paint with as broad a brush as your posts (here and elsewhere) indicate you do.

      • PunkPitch

        My issue with Oppenheimer are HIS drafts. They suck. And I’ll leave it at that.

  • Steve

    Curious how they play the rest of the 40 man/rule v situation out. They need to add Heathcott and Gary sanchez. Additionally they have three good almost ready relief prospects in chase whitley, Tom kahnle, and Dan burawa.

    I’d be surprised if they didn’t non tender or trade nix and stewart. Also, some other possible dfa candidates are Matt Daley and David huff.

    • CashmanNinja

      I believe they’ve already informed Stewart that they’ll non-tender him…or at least they will shortly. Once they announced they’d keep Cervelli I think that was the final nail in the coffin for Stewart. I hope he latches on elsewhere because it was rather unfair for him — he wasn’t supposed to play as much as he did, but was forced to because of injuries/under performing rookies. So the fact that he was exploited so much was merely because he played so much; it’s not as if he was ever better than we thought, he simply had to play more than he should have.

      And Mitchell is about as big a tease as you’ll find in the minors. In terms of pure stuff he’s up there. Sort of like how Joba was when he first came in and had that filthy slider. The problem is that he isn’t performing as well as he should when based on the stuff he possesses. He’s young enough to turn it around, but he’s going to really need to start making that big jump.

      • Mac

        I don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Stewart has a little bit of trade value. Maybe not quite George Kontos since he’s burned two league minimum seasons, but just hitting arb he might get you a Kontos-caliber RP who either has fewer years of control or a similar caliber prospect who is still in the low-to-mid minors. Something like that.
        I know people think I am irrationally high on Chris Stewart, but I don’t particularly care for him. I’m just trying to look at it objectively. Of 53 Cs in MLB with at least 150 PAs, about 40% last season had fewer fWAR than Stewart. He’s also known as one of the best Cs in MLB in handling a P staff and framing Ps. Objectively it’s pretty likely that one of the 29 teams out there is willing to pay Stewart $500k over league minimum to their their back-up C and willing to give the Yankees a little something for the opportunity.
        I’m not saying he definitely has trade value and could easily see him being non-tendered as they’re going to have 5 Cs on the roster and might go out and get another one somewhere.

        I don’t really understand the “exploited” logic. He played to his career numbers almost to a T. I agree that it wasn’t that great, but some people seem to imply that playing more makes these bench guys play worse and I don’t understand what logic underlies that.

        Mitchell has to make a big jump to be a SP, but maybe not a late inning RP. I don’t know enough about what ails him to say, but only short-spurts and with relatively more favorable RH/RH match-ups can help solve the issues of plenty of struggling SPs with great stuff.

        • Robinson Tilapia

          Not that it makes them worse, but the argument is that their existing flaws will be less relevant if they’re playing once a week.

          Otherwise, agree 100%.

          • Mac

            Yeah, I still don’t understand it. The team is being “exposed” to a sub-optimal player being on the field more, but over a meaningful sample the flaws are just as relevant to that player’s performance whether he’s out there once a week or five times a week (outside of a platoon type situation, a chronic injury situation provoked by overuse, etc.). People always talk about the player being “exposed” by playing more, though, which I either don’t understand or think is illogical.

            The only way that I see it making much sense are if the guy is a former platoon player being exposed to same-sided Ps. My guesses are that people might mean to say that the league finds out about the player… but outside of guys who have just come up recently I don’t think that’s the case and that wasn’t a sustainable advantage for that young guy even on the bench. Ps and coaches around the league know about bench players too, and while they may remain unknown longer on the bench than in the line-up they’ll get found out pretty quickly even on the bench.

            And I also think part of it is that there’s a misunderstanding about statistics as a science. People see the guy who does well in a small sample off the bench and then starts to stink as he plays more. They assume the causation goes more PT –> worse play. However, in all likelihood the original sample was just not representative of the player’s underlying ability because it was a small sample and small samples are too volatile to represent the underlying population (the player’s ability level/long-run performance in this case).

            • Robinson Tilapia

              The part-timer-thrust-into-full-time-play’s flaws would also be relevant due to the assumption that his playing time could be taken up by a player whose skill set is more apt for full-time play, with the assumption there being that that player’s not a backup because his skill set is better rounded.

              I appreciate your argument. I think you’re needing to pull back the lens a bit.

              • Mac

                I don’t know if that’s what people are saying, though. I would call that the team being exposed (for poor roster construction or poor depth) by playing a bad player. People always say that the player is exposed. Maybe it’s semantics, but I always try to get an explanation from the commenters who use the expression and don’t think I’ve gotten one to respond yet.

    • Robinson Tilapia

      I’d imagine a reliever’s getting exposed and, yeah, you’re not seeing Nix on anything but an MiLB. Lots of movement to happen before the draft.

  • RetroRob

    Stewart and Nix are gone.

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/roadgeek/ Roadgeek Adam

    Daley and Huff should get ST invites similar to what Nix did last year, and I would hope Nix does it again. (Accept removal from 40-man and come back with invite.)

    Cheapest ways to get people back, because I liked Daley a lot in the latter stages.

  • FLYER7

    Six spots to fill on 40 man without clearing spots with the likes of Nix, Stewart, Daley, Flores, Daley, Joseph, Adams?

    • Mac

      I’d be willing to bet you that Ramon Flores is not cleared off the 40-man this winter. Guy started the season as the 5th youngest player in the Eastern League and hit above league average at that level.

      I’d be surprised if Adams was let go before camp as well. He struggled in MLB, but did very well in his first look at AAA for half a season.

      I’m more on the fence about Joseph, but I’d still be surprised to see a 2B who crushed AAA in his first taste in 2012 get let go for nothing.